This is NOT a reply to my message to Dr Philpott. Not even close. It is a generic letter sent out to an undisclosed list and is an insult to the intelligence of every person who knows what’s really going on.

The attached document (Heads in the Sand http://olgasheean.com/heads-in-the-sand/) was sent to your office with very specific questions for the minister to answer. It also contains many of the scientific facts and data that you have glossed over or dismissed.

The minister is answerable to the public, especially when it concerns issues of harm being undeniably caused.

I await a meaningful, personal and direct reply to the questions in my document.

Subject: Fwd: Update 2017-01-03 Information about “the hum” that many people hear and dread.

Dear Ms. Malden and Mr. Newell,

This is already the 6th forwarded e-mail about the “Gag order issue”. Note from the first “Letter” below the 5 newsworthy items, that it is clear that I am not the only person in British Columbia “complaining” about the “micro-cellphone towers” (for 5G technology) that are popping up all over the province. Once again, you do not need to believe me, but “experts” (and I mean the real experts, not the paid hacks by industry) have determined that this is harmful to the physical and mental wellbeing of people. The statement made in Ms. Malden’s e-mail to me (on the 11th of August last year) is very confusing:

As you have noted in your communications, section 90 of the Community Charter details when a Board or Council may go in-camera on a matter. This section is not limited to land, labour and law, rather it containing several other instances under which a local government may go in-camera. Section 90(1) (j) states that a part of a meeting may be closed if subject matter being considered relates to or is ‘information that is prohibited, or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited, from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act’ (FIPPA). Section 21 of FIPPA addresses disclosure harmful to a business interest of a third party. If discussions were to take place regarding proprietary information, this would be the appropriate subsection under which a local government may close that part of a meeting.

Why? This does one thing: it places “business interest” above the “vested interest” of real people – and this cannot be so. If this is your interpretation of the Community Charter, I guess you are wrong. Why? Because “community” means “people”, and “community” does not mean “business” – by definition. People (who vote and pay your wages) are being harmed (and I mean some in the short-term, many more in the medium term and everybody in the long term) by the electromagnetic fields emanating from 5G technology. This is “unproven” and “unsafe” technology, at least, if one is not in denial.

This is just as much a “human rights issue” as it would like the following (and these are hypothetical situations):

Imperial Tobacco wants to speak to the RDOS Board (in camera) about a program to make tobacco use compulsory to everybody, including children, even in K-12 schools and daycare centres.

An asbestos mining company wants to speak to the RDOS Board (in camera) about a program to promote asbestos (at a very low price) into most products used in homes, so that refusing it would be considered a dumb idea.

The same with DDT, urea-formaldehyde, all the things that were at one time considered “OK”, but were later on rejected and now even “taboo”. Even thalidomide that was at one time “OK”.

Any other situation that you may think of; please fill in the blanks. “That is how we would like to do business”, the Telus spokesperson was quoted in the media.

I kid you not, this is the real problem. Unproven 5G technology is being let loose on an ignorant population. This should not be. And you rhyme this with Section 90(1) (j)???

Please rescind the previously made RDOS Board decision to meet with Telus in a closed session, and let the public know.

I believe that waiting for a decision by the UBCM (as the letter writer suggested) would be an exercise in futility – just like the “supposed moratorium” on smart meters a few years ago. Nothing came of that effort, as you all know.

It has come to my attention that small cell towers are being placed on hydro/telephone poles throughout the province, with the thought that higher cell towers will no longer be necessary to transmit existing and upcoming 5G transmission for wireless transmission. I am aware that the Islands Trust has enabled commissions on each island to prepare protocol for the placement of new, standard towers (over 15 metres), subject to Industry Canada approval. The UBCM fought hard to ensure that municipalities had some control of such infrastructure in their communities by ensuring that all towers over 15 metres should be vetted in this protocol. This new initiative by the telecommunications companies make this hard won 15 metre concession no longer viable as a control.

Inasmuch as it seems to me that you are our municipal government, I would ask that you endeavour to bring this up at the next UBCM. Control over our Electro Magnetic environment is an issue for the 21st century that needs to be intelligently addressed. San Francisco has been successful in passing legislation to ban the unauthorized proliferation of these devices.

I am concerned about the future of the environment and believe that excessive Electro Magnetic Radiation has a harmful effect on all life.